PARNELLISM AND CRIME

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 182, 14 August 1888, Page 2

PARNELLISM AND CRIME

By those who have watched with interest the course of events which are slowly but surely tending in one great direction—the concession of Home Rule to Ireland—the announcement that the Commission Bill has passed through the English House of Commons and i s now safe to become law, will be received with very mixed feelings. Each supporter of Home Rule will be glad to hear that at last Parnell and his fol" lowers will have a chance of disproving the very serious charges that have been brought against them, on the other hand one must regret that until now it was possible for a section of the British Parliament, to be broadly accused of committing “ crimes for which civilization decrees the gallows,” without any adequate means to defend themselves. One point however must be kept steadily in view and that is that the Judicial Commission is to enquire not as to the measure of Home Rule, but as to the character of the men who have consistently advocated it, and if they should be proved guilty of the direst crimes it can have no effect on the measure itself. Of course if a measure be supported by men of questionable characters, it causes that measure to be looked upon with suspicion. And this was apparently the reason why the Times launched forth its now famous articles on “ Parnellism and Crime,” which endeavored to prove that Parnellism was synonymous with crime, The principal charge against Mr Parnell was that whilst in parliament he denounced the Phoenix Park murders as atrocious and cowardly, h? afterwards wrote to someone-sup-posed to be Egan—the now historical letter which palliated that speech as being "the only course” and " plainly our best policy/’ and that though he regretted " the accident of Lord Cavendish’s death ” he could not “ refuse to admit that Burke got no more than his deserts,” Some other letters appear to have been produced on the trial of O'Donnel v, the Times, which, if genuine, seriously compromised the Irish party. The very evening of the day on which the first mentioned .letter was published Mr Parnell took occasion in the House of Commons to vehemently deny the genuineness of the letter and characterised it as a " villanous and barefaced forgery.” Some of the party endeavored to get the matter of its publication taken up as a breach of privilege, but the Speaker ruled that it did not amount to a breach of privlege, inasmuch as in the articles there was no imputation referring to the actual discharge of Parliamentary duties. Subsequently an attempt was also made to have a Select Committee appointed to enquire into the matter, but without avail, and Mr Parnell was advised by the Tory Government to seek his remedy in a court of law. This Mr Parnell was not at all inclined to do, for various reasons, not the least of which was that as all the evidence which would go to prove the forgery was in the hands of the limes it would be next to impossible for him to prove his case. This explains why he desired to have in the Bill the clause compelling evidence to be given. It must now be a matter for congratulation to find the Government have moved from the stand they formerly took up and have agreed to refer the whole of the very serious charges to a special Commission, consisting of three judges. One of these judges has been accused of partiality, but it would be quite impossible to find all the members of the Commission to suit all parties. However, the Commission sits next November, and Mr Parnell having accepted rhe inevitable, is confident that “ his party will emerge triumphant.” For the sake of the cause which he supports we hope it may be so, and even were they guilty it as well to know it. It must be evident that this new solution of the matter is a far better one than that of calling upon a presumably innocent man to prove himself not guilty. It must be reckoned as another victory for the cause of Home Rule that the Government have at length had to give way in the matter. If the charges are disproved, it will tell heavily against the Government,